Support

A cookie is a piece of data stored by your browser or device that helps websites like this one recognize return visitors. We use cookies to give you the best experience on BNA.com. Some cookies are also necessary for the technical operation of our website. If you continue browsing, you agree to this site’s use of cookies.

Medical Liability Damages Cap Approved in Narrow House Panel Vote

Damages for medical injuries that aren’t based on economic losses would be capped
at $250,000 under
legislation approved Feb. 28 by the House Judiciary Committee.

The Protecting Access to Care Act (H.R. 1215), sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa),
was approved by a vote of 18-17 with Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) the only Republican to
oppose the bill. All Democrats voted against the bill, on which the committee didn’t
hold hearings.

Republicans have long called for medical tort reform, arguing it would help lower
health-care costs because doctors wouldn’t have to practice defensive medicine by
ordering more tests and procedures than necessary. Detractors of tort reform say it
wouldn’t reduce health-care costs meaningfully.

Democrats charged that the bill would limit the ability of victims of medical malpractice
to be made whole for damages such as pain and suffering, and would trample on the
rights of states, which traditionally have governed malpractice law.

Chances of Adoption Slim

Federal medical malpractice liability reform has been talked about for years, but
the chances of its adoption are slim, as Democrats generally oppose it, and many Republicans
say the issue is one for the states, not the federal government.

A number of amendments introduced by Democrats were defeated along party-line votes.
However, one amendment offered by Rep. Hank Johnson Jr. (D-Ga.) initially passed with
some Republican support. The amendment would have allowed states to set their own
limits on malpractice awards under state constitutional provisions.

Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) later called another vote on the amendment,
which resulted in a 17-17 tie, with Poe and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho)
supporting the amendment. The tie vote meant the amendment failed to pass.

Lowering Health-Care Costs

The bill is modeled on California’s litigation reform law enacted in the 1970s, which
Goodlatte said has “lowered health care costs, and made health care much more accessible
to the people of that state.”

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that if the same reforms were applied at
the federal level, they would save more than $50 billion over a 10-year period, Goodlatte
said. A ballot initiative to raise the damages cap was defeated by a margin of more
than 2 to 1 in 2014, he said.

The bill approved Feb. 28 would limit contingency fees lawyers can charge. It also
would allow courts to require periodic payments for future damages instead of lump-sum
awards, to prevent bankruptcies in which plaintiffs would receive only pennies on
the dollar, Goodlatte said.

Pre-Empting Joint and Several Liability

The bill also includes a “fair share”
rule, under which damages are allocated fairly in direct proportion to fault, Goodlatte
said. That provision would pre-empt joint and several liability laws, which, Rep.
Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said, were in effect in 33 states.

Plaintiffs could receive full economic losses for medical costs, lost wages and other
out-of-pocket costs suffered as a result of a health-care injury, Goodlatte said.

Drugs, Devices

The provision has the potential to indirectly shield pharmaceutical and device manufacturers,
who could argue that a plaintiff’s injury could be blamed on a provider’s negligence,
Conyers said.

A trial lawyer group issued a release Feb. 24 criticizing the bill. The legislation
“would prevent patients and nursing home residents injured or killed by a health care
provider from ever seeking justice in court,” the American Association for Justice
said. The organization said a floor vote is expected on the bill in early March.

To contact the reporter on this story: Sara Hansard in Washington at
shansard@bna.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Kendra Casey Plank at
kcasey@bna.com

All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to books@bna.com.

Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)

Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).

This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to research@bna.com.

Put me on standing order

Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)